pet connection

E! Online is reporting that maybe (but no one’s sure, really) Paris Hilton is going to do a pet show. The famous for being famous celebrity idiot has almost single-handedly launched the little  dogs  as  fashion accessories for young women concept, which keeps countless puppy-mills and retail puppy-mills outlets dancing with glee.

But a pet show? Uh … E!’s “Ask the Answer Bitch” writes:

The Middle East has had troubles. Paris’ pets have had experiences—if reports are true—that fall somewhere between Lord of the Flies and Guantanamo Bay.

[...] Bunches of tabloids are reporting that Paris has scored a deal with Britain’s Living TV network to follow the heiress as she manages a pet grooming salon on Bond Street. However, when I contacted the network, they seemed as bewildered as a flock of underfed Chihuahuas.

“This one’s not us, I’m afraid,” a Living spokeswoman just told me via email. “It was misreported in yesterday’s Daily Star Sunday that it was, and I’m afraid I’m not sure what channel it is.”

Hilton’s reps didn’t return a request for comment, so if there is a show like this in the works—anywhere—the details remain a mystery.

Either way, it might not be the best idea. If there is a celebrity out there who has a rep for being a good pet mommy, it’s not Paris.

The rest outlines the troubles Ms. Hilton has with caring for her pets. At least the ones we know about, that is. Geez, can’t she just hire some help? And leave the puppy-mill retail outlets alone?

Elsewhere: A story on Pope Benedict’s longstanding love of cats is the most e-mailed piece on the New York Times Web site for days running now:

Though Benedict is the first pope to be written about by a cat, he falls squarely within a long Vatican tradition. According to “The Papacy: An Encyclopedia,” by Philippe Levillain, Pope Paul II, in the 15th century, had his cats treated by his personal physician. Leo XII, in the 1820s, raised his grayish-red cat, Micetto, in the pleat of his cassock. And according to The Times of London, Paul VI, pope from 1963 to 1978, is said to have once dressed his cat in cardinal’s robes.

When Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the German newspaper Bild wrote, he tended to the cats that frequented the garden of the congregation’s building in the Vatican and bandaged their wounds.

I didn’t find the piece that interesting at all, but as a very lapsed Catholic (after 13 years of Catholic schooling, thankyouverymuch) I may be immune to Pope-mania. Christie, also tormentededucated by Catholic schools, may be the same.

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t get a frantic email from someone wanting me to publicize the case of an individual whose animals were seized due to alleged abuse or neglect.

Sometimes the person is being presented to me as a rescuer or breeder being wrongly targeted by a hostile animal control or shelter organization in their area for opposing the policies or practices of that organization. I’ve gotten a lot more of those since I began writing about the shelter reform movement.

Sometimes they’re being offered as an example of an evil puppy miller whose crimes are likely to be overlooked or under-punished due to ineffective local authorities or corrupt law enforcement or just general apathy.

When I reply, it’s usually with something like this:

I’ve investigated a few situations such as this one, and I’ve seen as many that were hoarders by any definition as I’ve seen examples of people being persecuted. There’s no way for me to know which one this is, and without knowing that, I can’t get involved with this case.

But as you champion this individual’s cause, keep one thing in mind. Animals, and people’s love for them, have become weapons in a propaganda war over how best to keep animals in our lives and homes.

On one hand, the nationwide movement for shelter reform has caused some disgruntled animal control and shelter workers to make examples or even targets of rescue groups and home-based breeders who have a different view than their own.

On the other hand, among those fighting to defend the traditional relationship between people and companion animals there is an unfortunate tendency to champion every whacko hoarder as a victimized rescuer, and every abusive breeder as a target of an animal control system gone rogue.

Who should we believe? Which side should we be on?

We should be on the side of the truth. When confronted with a report like this one, consider the agenda of whoever is telling the story. Try not to get sucked into these things unless you can get a grasp on the facts. When a case isn’t what you thought it was, stop trying to force it to fit your ideology.

And when you talk about these situations, realize that a stealth campaign to restrict and regulate pet ownership in the name of “helping animals” created this conflict. But while one side may have started it, those on the other side haven’t been slow to adopt the same techniques, making it increasingly hard to know what’s really going on in a given situation.

In fact, the willingness of people on both sides of this issue to use every incident as grist for their propaganda mill has made it almost impossible for people to show compassion for humans or animals without the risk of getting sucked into an agenda they may neither understand nor support.

Don’t fall for it. Don’t play into it. And if you can’t win your argument without propaganda, then your argument should fail.

I’m tired of the assumption that people who believe in preserving heritage dog breeds, support the right of people to own, show, and breed dogs, and who want to hold government, including animal control, accountable for its actions on their behalf must also be Republicans.

I’m not. As you have probably previously noticed.

There’s also something of an assumption that anyone who fights against mandatory spay/neuter laws will also support a whole host of other things, none of which I do… like the mass commercial breeding of dogs, selling puppies and kittens through third parties (whether brokers, websites, or pet stores), or factory farming.

I not only refuse to get in bed with puppy millers in order to preserve my right to own intact purebred dogs, but I think the argument that I have to do that is crap.

Just because I advocate for something, write persuasively about it, and believe it myself, does not mean I think it’s a good idea to make it mandatory. I believe in people making up their own minds.

I also believe in speaking mine, and yes, I try to be persuasive when I do. That’s my form of advocacy.

I will not sacrifice one right — the right to speak freely about what I believe — for another — the right to preserve the Scottish Deerhound. In fact, with all due respect to my beloved breed, if it’s a contest between the two, I’ll pick the first.

I understand that some of the people I’ve stood with in opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws believe they have to support the sale of puppies in pet stores in order to be “consistent,” and in order to have the support of the pet industry for the cause. As I said to one of those people a few nights ago, I sat on the floor once with an Italian greyhound who had spent the 8 years of her life or so in a puppy producing facility. I would call it a puppy mill, even though it may well have been clean, USDA approved, and had its own little team of vets and vet techs supervising everything.

She didn’t react when you petted her. She didn’t see you when she looked at you. She didn’t care about being cuddled or walked, didn’t want a toy or even a treat. She wasn’t curious, or interested, or aware.

When I looked in her eyes, she was dead.

And that’s why I don’t care how clean the mill was, and I don’t care if a thousand studies say that puppies are just as healthy and loved if they come from a pet store as if they come from a home breeder. Because it’s not about the puppies, it’s about their mothers.

And their dead eyes.

I believe mandatory spay/neuter harms animals and the people who love them. I believe it’s designed to impede pet ownership in furtherance of an anti-pet agenda, not to reduce the number of animals killed in shelters. That’s why I fight it.

I believe that the way to change things is through free expression, speech, persuasion, and education, not legislation.

I believe that the only way to shut down puppy mills is to dry up the market, because there’s no just way to legislate them out of business without trampling on people’s freedoms, and in the end, harming the human/animal bond.

But I believe that as a liberal, and as a dog lover, and as the opponent of the mass commercial production of puppies, and someone who is against the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores.

And I don’t find any of those things a contradiction.

An earlier version of this post appeared on my personal blog.

Fresh into the Pet Connection e-mail box:

We found your name on a dog breeder directory and wanted to contact you as we have a dog website that is already building great popularity in the dog industry, and is well on its way to become one of the top dog sites on the Web. The address is [if you think we're going to promote your puppy-millers, you're crazy!].

What I would like to propose to you is to list your site in our newly improved Breeders Directory which includes all AKC recognized breeds, by becoming a member of the [xxx] community. [COMMUNITY? Of people dedicated to torturing dogs and screwing the public? Glad I don't live there!] There is NO cost, simply go to this link:

[xxx]

If you have any questions, my name is XXX and you can reach me at: [xxx] or toll free at [xxx].

Wow. Someone sure missed Oprah yesterday.

From the HSUS, two easy steps to stopping puppy mills:

• Choosing not to buy my next pet from a pet store or Internet site
• Refusing to buy supplies from any pet store or Internet site that sells puppies

I’ll add one more:

Tell a friend.  

The preview for the Oprah puppy mill show is fantastic! Looks like she’s really going to expose these horrible puppy factories. Way to go!

Check it out and then tell us what you thought of the show after.

And add your favorite links to more information on this issue, too.

Here’s Oprah’s list of resources and here’s her message board link.

I won’t see the show for hours here on the West Coast, since it’s on just before the evening news in my area.

And in the credit where credit is due department, check out the resources at The Humane Society of the United States. They have always, always been in the forefront of investigating and exposing puppy mills, all the way back to a 1962 Life magazine expose — “Not Fit for a Dog.” In the 1980s, the courageous Bob Baker of the HSUS exposed puppy mills, leading to the passage of “puppy lemon laws” in many states.

The “you’re either with us or agin’ us” stuff that makes me crazy: John Yates, writing for the American Sporting Dog Alliance:

Dog owners might be in for another bashing on Friday, when ultra-liberal talk show host Oprah Winfrey does a special program on “puppy mills.” Winfrey’s star reporter, Lisa Ling, went undercover in commercial breeding kennels to do an expose on the pet store trade.

Although the commercial trade in pet store puppies has nothing to do with the vast majority of dog owners and breeders, sensationalistic news coverage tars us with the same brush. To the liberal animal rights mindset, all breeders are either “puppy mills” or “backyard breeders,” and this always translates into more laws that harm only the innocent. Moreover, the hidden agenda of the animal rights movement is the ultimate elimination of animal ownership, and their strategy is to pick us off one group at a time.

Wow, here I am threatened by PETA one week, and calling BS on a hunting-dog advocacy group the next. I refuse to give puppy mills a free pass because I just happen to be on the same side as animal advocacy groups on this one. I want to see the end of commercial puppy factories. But I’m also against breeding bans, and I’m also against gun control.

Many animal activists do believe “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” and that all are scum. But that has nothing to do with “liberals,” and I know all kinds of people who vote all kinds of ways on other issues who don’t understand the distinctions between a clueless, greedhead backyard breeder, a commercial puppy factory and reputable breeder.

Instead of slinging insults and jumping in bed with the puppy-millers, why not fight this battle with the truth?

If Oprah can keep some ninny from pulling out a credit card to get a puppy-mill purse dog, I’m all for it. And then those who believe in ethical, responsible breeding can make our own point.